Merit denotes goodness. It is a word synonymous with excellence, value, and quality. We strive to live meritorious lives, because to do so brings happiness to others and distinction to ourselves. When society thrives, it does so largely due to the actions and contributions of people displaying merit. 

There is no hotly contested debate about the virtue of merit. It is generally thought to be a desired attribute, particularly among employees. What boss would not want to have positive, reliable, and worthwhile workers on her team? And yet, another term derived from the word merit, meritocracy, seems to be under fire. 

Broadly speaking, meritocracy refers to an institutionalizing of talent, ability, and skill which when present and operational results in optimally run organizations, whether in business, government, or the nonprofit sector. Compensation and power are steered toward those individuals who best demonstrate the desired traits of a meritocracy such as intelligence, valued credentials, and solid performance. 

I always thought meritocracy was an affirmative construct, so I have been surprised to see that meritocracy has now become, counter-intuitively for me at least, a controversial concept. To see why, I decided to examine what the dispute is all about. 

Examples of meritocratic administration are historic reaching back millennia. More recently though, it turns out the word meritocracy was originally coined and used derogatorily in 1958 by a British politician who was criticizing the British education system as overly favoring student intelligence and aptitude above other characteristics, leading to elitism. 

It was not until 1972 when Harvard sociologist Daniel Bell put a positive spin on the term by championing a combination of intelligence and energy as ideologically desirable. Today, there are many proponents and critics of meritocratic systems. Their divergent views seem to rest on differences in how one determines what is fair in an organization or institution. 

For example, Jim Whitehurst, who is now president of IBM, is bullish on meritocracy. He sees only advantage in strongly rewarding the best people with the best ideas. Establishing a culture that encourages listening and sharing and where every associate can contribute makes it easier for management to discern which inspirations result in high end gains over time. By enabling leaders to spot emerging talent and to position this ability where they can create the greatest value, followed by generous compensation for the quality influencers, is the hallmark of a highly functioning meritocracy. Keeping associates engaged and identifying in-house leadership makes for a stronger organization. 

A recent significant criticism of meritocracy was released in 2019 in the form of a book, The Meritocracy Trap by Yale law professor Daniel Markovits. He sees meritocracy as “a pretense, constructed to rationalize an unjust distribution of advantage.” According to Markovits, meritocracy has two profound liabilities — it is often an unfair system that benefits those of a certain traditional type of leadership, say white males over women or minorities, and that those seen as meritorious find their lives consumed by competition and long hours devoted to the company. Hence, the trap. In practice, not all talent really percolates to the top and if one is “lucky” enough to be among the chosen, then one’s life becomes less than satisfying. 

So, does meritocracy need reform? It depends on how “fair” is defined within an organization that purports to practice it. The style of meritocracy described by Whitehurst sounds fair to me, if and only if, the culture is truly open to high quality ideas no matter who puts them forth and that selection of those with desired aptitudes are chosen for their skills and abilities alone and not for extraneous considerations. And Markovits’ point about exploitation of expertise is also in need of monitoring, primarily by those whose careers and lifestyles are most affected. 

One thing advocates and critics alike can agree on is that merit is a virtue to be promoted and defended. We all benefit when it is. 

When I drive my E-ZPass-less car through the tollbooth on I93 in Hooksett, NH, I intentionally swing to the right to hand a dollar to the tollbooth attendant. When checking out from a shopping trip in a big box store, I prefer paying a person at a cash register rather than using the self-serve payment scan system. 

It is not that I am some sort of crotchety Luddite who shuns digital progress. I pride myself on maintaining some decent level of technical functionality as I age. But I have come to question why those who design and build our Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems are obsessed with things like automation. In fact, the more I investigate AI the more surprised I am that AI is being utilized so narrowly, unevenly, and menacingly. 

The AI movement is powerful, significant, and potentially authoritative regarding how our personal and work lives will be lived in the coming years. The scale of its reach places it in a class far beyond the technological tinkering improvements we generally see with new phone models or app developments. Machine learning is far more enigmatic than a better video camera or gaming platform. 

Momentous changes are likely in a broad range of fields from mechanics to medicine and are expected to reshape work and modify markets. Many of these transformations will be welcomed, perhaps cherished, but others perhaps should not happen at all. 

When looking at AI today it seems too much of it is focused on building systems that either automate functions, collect data, or conduct surveillance. This should be concerning. The likelihood of jobs being lost, governments and companies holding vast quantities of our personal information, and our personal freedoms becoming threatened is not some far-fetched paranoid delusion, but an ugly scenario we should work to prevent. 

There is progress and then there is degeneration. AI could give us either or both. As an analog, I think of my attitude ten to fifteen years ago about social media. Then, the crowdsourcing of unregulated input from the global community augured richer and more transparent conversations about any number of topics. Or so I thought. Today social media looks like a cesspool of disinformation and disgruntlement ushering in social breakdown. Not all innovations should be welcomed. 

In our democracy, while we still have one, the general public needs to be actively engaged in monitoring the AI powers that we have and weighing in on policies to determine what AI engineers develop. Living with a laissez-faire attitude of, ‘Well, whatever the markets come up with will be fine. Markets know best.’, can lead to costly and offensive ruptures in the very framework of society. Citizens should insist that AI be deployed in a generally advantageous manner as described by utilitarian philosophers like Jeremy Bentham — “the greatest amount of good for the greatest number”. 

Instead, it looks like AI development is being driven more by the acquisition of corporate profit and power than by what benefits society. One does not need be a wild-eyed Socialist to question whether a disruption as encompassing as AI could potentially pose hazards to society. Those who control the development and deployment of AI will have a lot of authority and say in how our economy operates and how our future day-to-day lives are experienced. Concentrations of power have traditionally been held suspect in America. Well, we have one in the making. Let’s pay attention. 

The ultimate direction AI takes does not have to be decided solely by engineers and corporate C-levels who find business in selling only surveillance and automation tools. AI could be targeted to complement and improve the work done by real people, while also creating new activities and opportunities that keep workers gainfully employed. We have a choice — let AI rule us or we rule it. Hopefully, we will choose wisely. 

Increasingly, we see workers wanting to aim their careers in the direction of green pursuits and sustainability. Many careers are being chosen to align one’s environment-friendly values with their need to earn a living. Jobs ranging from LEED building inspections to ecotourism to aquatic biology and much more are under consideration. What is rarely considered by the environmentally conscious job seeker is a career in manufacturing. 

Manufacturing gets a bad rap among the green crowd. Although we all heavily rely on the diverse range of products yielded by the sector, it is nevertheless often viewed as unclean and a source of resource depletion. The 20th century image of soot-stained smoke belching factories beside lagoons of toxic waste still clings to many minds. Choosing work between an industrial plant and say a green initiative nonprofit is a no-brainer for the ecologically inclined. 

But wait! There may be reasons to look at the modern manufacturing sector as harboring some initiatives that could make even the most devoted tree hugger stop and slowly nod in the affirmative. 

Gradually, we see evidence of manufacturers attempting what is known as a circular business model. This approach seeks to establish supply chains that involve recycling and recovery of constituent materials used in the making of products. If the circle is really tight, supply chains swirl themselves into a continuous loop, whereby new raw materials are rarely needed in the reproduction of products. 

Imagine knowing that once the usefulness of a manufactured product has expired it can be returned to the industry from whence it came, rather than a landfill, and be reused or repurposed into future products. Sounds pretty green, doesn’t it?  

Beyond the PR-positive social responsibility and environmental gains of instituting green practices, there are other economic benefits for the manufacturer by going circular. These include reducing production waste and utilizing raw materials more efficiently, both of which are cost saving activities. 

Implementing a circular business model can involve up to three strategies, according to operational experts Atalay Atasu, Céline Dumas, and Luk Van Wassenhove. They identify the following as practical schemes manufacturers can apply to adopt a circular model. 

The first is known as Retain Product Ownership. Typically, this involves leasing rather than selling products. Once the product is past its usefulness it goes back to the manufacturer for reprocessing. This approach may work best for products with a lot of components and complexity, and which can be transported back to the manufacturer relatively easily. 

Another direction may be in Product Life Extension. Here products are made more durable and longer lasting than the competition. Gaining a consumer reputation as a quality enduring product makes premium pricing more justifiable and builds consumer loyalty. Throw in easy exchange policies for worn or defective products and people take notice. 

There is also the intentional Design for Recycling action plan. Designing and creating products built to be fully recycled ensures the eventual reuse of products or at least their elemental parts. It is surprising we do not see more of this in general manufacturing now. To have an infrastructure that efficiently captures reusable products that are made to be recycled would be a very exciting development in manufacturing, indeed. 

To be sure, management may have to get creative with how to weigh these different approaches to reduce both costs and their environmental impact. What is most important is for the manufacturer to see that value can be reclaimed from their products. With value comes profits. Re-energizing product value time and time again at lower costs may make good business sense. 

So, when searching for “green” lines of work consider whether these circular business model techniques align with your eco-consciousness. You may find manufacturing is the place where you can best express your environmental principles. 

I am pleased to present a Guest Article from Leslie Campos of Well Parents. For more information about this wellness resource targeted for parents please visit https://wellparents.com.

High school and college students can’t wait to launch into a career and start gaining real-world experience. However, when graduation nears and it’s time to start applying for jobs, most students don’t know where to start. Before the job search begins, students should take these steps to get their professional life started off right. Below, we explore some ideas that can help you start off your own career planning on the right foot.

Building Strong Credentials

New graduates lack work experience to put on their resume, but that doesn’t mean they lack experience. Without career positions to highlight, recent graduates should focus on internships, apprenticeships, volunteer experience, and extracurricular activities to demonstrate their relevant experience.

Listing roles isn’t enough. Applicants should highlight skills and accomplishments from each role, focusing on skills that are related to the job they are applying for. Many of these will be soft skills, but that’s not a bad thing. Employers can always train an entry-level employee in the technical skills they need for a job, but instilling soft skills like communication, conflict resolution, and leadership is much harder.

To further hone your capabilities, an advanced education might fit the bill. Programs like WGU’s market-responsive online business program brings relevant, real-world knowledge to the table, and you can even flex the course load to suit your needs. Explore your options to find industry-relevant, practical programming that will give you the advantages you need.

Networking

Outside of developing their resume, networking is the most important thing students can do to set themselves up for a successful career after graduation. Networking with professors, campus staff, fellow students, and alumni is a good start, but students should also look beyond their school’s walls for networking opportunities.

Internships are ideal networking opportunities for students. An internship is a way to develop hard skills needed on the job, but more importantly it’s a chance to meet potential employers, learn about career paths in a field, and gain strong references for a future career search. Naviance recommends college students pursue internships as early in their college career as possible rather than waiting until senior year.

Crafting a Strong Resume

Skills and a strong network alone won’t land recent graduates in their career of choice. Entry-level workers also need strong application materials that appeal to today’s hiring managers. A strong resume is partly about content, but design is equally important. A resume and cover letter that are visually appealing and free of errors demonstrate an applicant is diligent and detail-oriented, skills every employer wants in their staff. At the same time, students should be wary of sacrificing professionalism for the sake of design. For first-time job-seekers, premade resume templates are an essential tool for creating a resume that balances good design with a professional appearance.

While filling in a resume template, applicants should be sure to include keywords from the job posting they’re applying for. Many companies use electronic applicant screening systems to find resumes with keywords that pertain to the job. Monster explains how to select keywords along with other resume tips for recent grads.

Pursuing Non-Traditional Career Paths

Pursuing a college degree and a white collar career isn’t the only path to economic success. Many recent graduates find they are better suited for entrepreneurship or a career in the trades.

Entrepreneurship is a challenging route for people without real-world experience to build off of, but many recent graduates are finding success in starting online businesses such as ecommerce businesses based in dropshipping. These types of businesses require much less start-up capital than traditional brick-and-mortar businesses, making them more accessible to young people with limited financial resources. As long as entrepreneurs can deliver unique value to customers and build a strong website with good customer service, they can find success in online business.

The trades are another field in high demand. High school students can enter the trades without a four-year college degree and earn an income comparable to their college-educated peers. As NPR reports, trades such as construction and plumbing are experiencing labor shortages in much of the US, so students interested in this path face little trouble finding opportunities.

The transition from student to professional isn’t an easy one. The shift is made even harder when students don’t know the right way to land the job they want. While these tips can’t guarantee students will land the entry-level position they’re aiming for, they’re the necessary first steps toward a successful career.

Image via Unsplash

The knowledge economy office workplace got a sudden shake-up over the past year plus. At its peak, not that long ago, the pre-vaccinated office-based workforce (March 2020-March 2021) was functioning more from home than from the traditional office, approximately ten times more so than pre-pandemic rates. According to the University of Chicago, as recently as March 2021, 45% of work services were still being performed in home environments. 

This begs the question, is office work going to snap back to the way it was with workers committing to long hours away from family spent in bustling office buildings arrived at via thick commuting traffic? And if so, why? 

Whether or not the Covid pandemic has unwittingly ushered in a paradigm shift in how work is dispensed over the long term is yet to be determined. It will certainly be one of the interesting trends to observe over the next few years. At present, a look at some of the currently available, albeit sparse, indicators seem to show some degree of change in how work operations are conducted. And they may be with us for the foreseeable future. 

It is fair to assume most management desire a return to normal times, during which management practices they were accustomed to can be resumed. If there is to be a more permanent realignment to include more flexibility such as remote work activity it probably will not willingly come from supervisors. To dust off that old business expression from the 20th century, it will come from the rank and file. 

A Microsoft WorkLab report from earlier this year reveals some pertinent findings. Nearly three quarters of employees wish for an option to work remotely. Although remote work has its downsides, enough workers have experienced that productivity can still be maintained by way of technological means in a comfortable environment with less stress and less exhaustion. Demand for a more permanent flexible, distributive, blended, or hybrid production model has arisen among office employees, according to this report. 

Older Gen Z and younger Millennials form a cohort that may be informative here. Living and working from devices is second nature to them. It is reasonable to expect the momentum for more flexibility will come from them. If their resumes and LinkedIn profiles start showing more quantifiable accomplishments derived from working remotely, they will be communicating not only that they can do it, but that they want to be hired for positions honoring such skills. Balancing productivity with wellbeing in the modern era will only grow as a necessary calibration and younger workers are likely to show the way in the context of adaptable workstyles. 

Business need not be driven into this transformation kicking and screaming. Signs are emerging among C-levels showing a recognition of the likely changes to come. A Work Trend Index survey conducted by Edelman Data & Intelligence discloses that 66% of business leaders are contemplating refashioning office space to allow for more flexibility.  

Reasons are twofold. As implied earlier, the workforce appears to be increasingly desirable of workplace flexibility. This could likely become an incentive for luring needed talent not wanting to be bound by traditional institutional rules. 

Additionally, business is identifying some benefits as a result of the Covid-induced remote working experiment in terms of lower overhead, as reported by NPR, and increased productivity, as claimed by Harvard Business Review. 

It is likely multiple variations on a hybrid model will become established moving forward that incorporates combinations of conventional office-centric requirements with increased distributive or remote work options for employees.  

Although no one could have reasonably predicted that a congruence of modern communication technologies with a global pandemic would steer this trend, the result could ultimately be a boon for workers and their bosses. Let us hope employers give such changes serious consideration. 

Here it is, the year 2021 and gender discrimination is still, unbelievably, an unresolved issue in far too many workplaces. Despite attention being drawn to the issue for nearly fifty years there still exists a fundamental unfairness in how women are treated in employment environments that are either directly dominated by male senior management or at least influenced by the attitude, mindsets, and practices of traditional leadership. 

Although women make up about 50% of the workforce, they still experience discrimination in several significant areas. These include unequal compensation, a dearth of organizational upward mobility, a paucity of key decision making power, and sexual harassment.  

These are profound work culture deficiencies and injustices. The time is now to eradicate these stubborn blemishes from our workplaces. Such defects are not only ethically unrighteous, but they depress productive potential heretofore unrealized from among half of the workforce. 

It is not as if there have not been attempts to remediate workplace gender inequities. Many senior management teams acknowledge the historic existence of male-oriented favoritism and sexism embedded in their workplaces and others. This recognition has been acted upon with initiatives to make their businesses and organizations fairer and more equitable. 

Yet the problem persists. Instances of gender discrimination continue to be documented and contested within management offices, HR departments, and law firms, resulting in deployments of considerable resources for a seemingly unending management of the consequences of bad behavior. 

Elisabeth Kelan of the University of Essex in the UK has been researching gender equity issues for over twenty years. She has determined that there is widespread agreement gender inequity is prevalent overall, but interestingly these same individuals will not admit to such incidents occurring in their own specific workplaces. 

Why is this so? Dr. Kelan sees several reasons for this. To begin with, many see discrimination as the fault of their competitors or of other companies, but not of their own more virtuous workplaces. Secondly, there is a belief the issue was worse in the past, but is largely being resolved, affirming that all the mitigation efforts made thus far have worked to reduce it to a minor issue. Finally, there are those who do not fully appreciate gender equity as a big deal and if it occurs at all it is not their fault. 

If we accept Dr. Kelan’s findings as authentic it begs the question, “What are people thinking?!” What I think they are thinking is what has always been thought. At levels great and small men see themselves as better leaders, sharper decision makers, keener managers, stronger deal makers, and superior competitors. And let’s face it, there are some traditionalist women who think these roles are more masculine in nature as well. 

Even if one sees the data and intellectually accepts gender discrimination as a problem it does not automatically follow that requisite behavior changes will occur. When I reflect on my own past, I see pertinent examples. I have long believed that gender equity in the workplace was a quality worth pursuing. It is a no-brainer. 

However, have there been instances where I was more inclined to accept a fellow male’s opinion over a female’s during a meeting, or thought a woman colleague was too sensitive and not tough enough, or paid more attention to a woman’s looks rather than listening to her thoughts? Embarrassingly, the answer is yes. It is these small, but meaningful actions that keep us from achieving progress in accepting women as full and equal partners at work. 

Anti-bias training programs and the like may make some difference in altering operational behaviors, but greater progress may result from each of us looking more deeply into how we interact with each other beyond surface manners. Clarifying the personal values that motivate our behavior patterns may reveal more to us individually and strengthen needed improvements than any mission statement or management protocol might. The time is now to end gender discrimination. 

Psychology plays a significant role in the development of our careers. It starts with identifying our work interests when we are young and expands over time to include interpersonal relations, self-motivation, passion for what we do, attitudes toward superiors, team cooperativeness, and many other job-related aspects. Perhaps most importantly psychology speaks to how constructive we are on the job and the way we manage our mental well-being and stress levels while on the road to productivity. 

Effective performance is dependent on how a worker feels at work. Safety, security, and freedom from harassment are basic. Beyond that, feeling appreciated and being prepared to work efficiently sets up an employee to be a valued contributor. Quality management can be instrumental in establishing and maintaining such workplace conditions. But realizing the benefits of positive psychology is not just the responsibility of management. The state of our psychology is ultimately up to each of us individually — in life as well as at work. 

Perhaps the key psychological quality determining how well we will flourish in our careers is self-awareness. Individuals with keen self-awareness possess a nearly full perception of their emotional makeup, potential, imperfections, requirements, and what energizes them. They are well equipped to capitalize on their strengths while managing their weaknesses. Self-aware professionals carry with them a quiet self-confidence based on honesty and realism knowing they do not have to fake it to make it. Their success results from a work product competently delivered, but not exceeding their capacity to perform effectively. They know what they know and “know” what they don’t know. 

Self-awareness need not be thought of as some metaphysical trait held by only a few anointed people. We all practice it to some degree. For example, if we know that too many scheduled meetings packed closely together stress us out, then we work to make sure the meetings during which we are expected to participate are spaced such that we can contribute optimally. 

If we get anxious when seeing our email inbox overflowing with superfluous messages, then we let our co-workers know to only send messages of significant importance. If we know our best work comes from meeting deadlines, then we structure our workflow such that tasks needing completion by a specific time are stacked accordingly. (You don’t have control about such conditions with your job? You may be in the wrong job.) 

An additional benefit of self-awareness is its extended usefulness to co-workers. The self-aware colleague is less likely to lash out in frustration or to make unreasonable demands of others. They have a leg up on assessing the capacity levels of their fellow associates and can sense how each best accomplishes their assignments. Team functioning and work yield are enhanced the more self-aware team members are. Self-aware coworkers and managers can serve as models, if not unofficial mentors, thereby improving the overall workforce. 

Self-awareness is internally cultivated over time. Developing this ability is largely linked to how reflective we each choose to be. Reflection is a chief component of critical thinking. As we refine our reflective skill, we find ourselves more adept in examining, analyzing, and assessing experiences, which better informs how we address future challenges. 

For some of us, building in time and effort to be reflective may need to be more intentional. If we observe that our default mode is to keep plowing through the details and minute-by-minute demands of our jobs without purposefully reflecting on what insights we can gain from the approaches we take, then we deny ourselves the richness that can come from reflection and by extension self-awareness. 

In short, self-awareness brings increased clarity to our work values and goals. Our decisions are improved and our objective of strengthening and deriving more satisfaction from our careers becomes more likely. 

Don’t worry. Very few of us have reached self-awareness nirvana. So, give yourself a break and start or continue to polish this aptitude wherever you are on the spectrum. 

A lofty phrase that has been around for a while, but has gained newly found prominence in recent years, is the term “dignity of work”. It is uttered across the political spectrum, because it is widely thought to have universal respect and acceptance. Who could possibly argue with a concept which conveys cherishment of commitment, skill development, and above all personal responsibility to provide for oneself and their family? Dignity of work harkens not only to a pride of traditional labor honestly performed but can also inspire and motivate all working-aged adults to do their part for the economy and community. 

The dignity of work is seen as a sublime end in itself. We were raised to accept a lifetime of work. Work is contributing. Work is doing your duty. Work is good and more selfless work is better. Achievement of a profound sense of satisfaction that comes from doing a job well is the ultimate reward for our labors, or so we are told. The grateful pat on the back from a coworker, the smile and nod from the boss, the eloquent testimonial from a delighted customer together represent just some of the energizing commendations that make work invaluable. 

So, why then is work not felt so favorable or worthwhile for so many? We do not have to look far to see people unhappy with their work. The dignity of work is elusive for more workers than it should be. A Harvard Business Review survey in 2019 of 500+ workers found the vast majority (90%) expected to find joy in their work but given time on the job only 37% experienced joy. A few years ago, Gallup reported only 30% of workers engaged with their jobs. Forbes cited a survey of 411 workers, 19% of whom were satisfied with their jobs. I could go on. 

Dignity is not inherent in work. Labor cannot be dignified unless some basic conditions are met. The US Conference of Catholic Bishops advocates for fundamental worker rights as a prerequisite for work dignity such as availability of productive work, fair and sufficient compensation, and a permission structure allowing for organizing and unionization among other rights. 

Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio calls for enhancements of wages and benefits, healthcare costs, and retirement programs as a way of assuring dignity. Ezra Klein in the New York Times points to elimination of harmful and oppressive workplaces and for management to encourage workers to remain healthy and have leisure and family time. 

I would add removal of tyrannical management, toxic coworkers, and workplace cultures that devalue portions of the workforce. 

However, beyond stating what is not wanted to engender dignity in work, let us focus on practices likely to lead to dignity. Workers by and large want the chance to be self-motivated. There are three key situations which encourage this. As pointed out by Daniel Pink in his book Drive, fostering an environment where workers are urged to develop mastery of their profession, exercise autonomy in decision making, and define personal and professional purpose in what they do all matter greatly. 

Workers want to be respected and given the freedom to grow. They want to be able to sustain reasonable financial needs by working only one 40-hour per week job. They want executive management who understand the principal capital in their firms are their employees, who need to know they are valued. They want the support of customers who intentionally direct their dollars toward businesses that treat their employees with dignity. (It begs the question, is a business model that requires employees working for only $7.25 per hour worthy of staying in business in this day and age?) 

Dignity of work should continue to be a universal value, but let’s not cling to some notion it arises spontaneously, especially under adverse conditions. It does not. Dignity may be felt individually, but it takes a community to see it is broadly shared.